Author: Baghdasarian Karlen

WHY WAS STATUE OF ANDRANIK DEMOLISHED?

12:38 pm | Today | Social

The “Sargis Tkhruni” Student-Youth Union of the Hnchakyan Party
demands an explanation for the demolition of the statue of General
Andranik in Sochi.

“Armenian and Russian presses have touched upon the demolition of
National Hero, legendary Hayduk, General Andranik in Sochi on the
evening of May 27. According to sources, the demolition wasn’t due
to pressure from Turkey or Azerbaijan (even though in that case,
only that would be logical), but by the initiative of the leadership
of the Sochi branch of the Union of Armenians of Russia.

The “Sargis Tkhruni” Student-Youth Union of the Hnchakyan Party simply
expresses indignation with the demolition of Andranik’s statue by
our compatriots before Republic Day. The leadership of the Union of
Armenians of Russia must give a proper explanation for taking this
humiliating step.

Andranik laid his entire life on the line for the Armenian Cause
and didn’t spare any efforts for the Armenian nation’s liberty and
the liberation of our lands. Demolishing the statue of a national
hero is, to say the least humiliating, if not treason,” as stated in
the statement.

From: Baghdasarian

PROGRESS IN DINK’S CASE: TURKISH POLICEMEN DETAINED

Tert.am
02.06.11

The Turkish policemen standing a trial over the assassination of
Hrant Dink, the editor-in-chief of the Armenian-Turkish weekly Agos,
have been detained.

According to the Turkish news agency Dogan, a court in the Turkish town
of Trabzon, has sentenced a former gendermerie commander Ali Ozi, and a
former intelligence unit chief, Metin Yildiz, to six months in prison.

In the meantime, four gendarmerie soldiers have been sentenced to
four months of imprisonment. Two other soldier have been set free.

Ali Ozi and his subordinates were facing charges for failure to ensure
Dink’s protection.

From: Baghdasarian

RUSSIAN SPECIALISTS TO SHARE EXPERIENCE IN INTRODUCTION OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES IN EDUCATION IN YEREVAN

arminfo
Thursday, June 2, 13:18

A seminar entitled “Information and Communication Technologies in
Education: Perspectives of Development” has got underway in Yerevan.

Specialists and developers of web-technologies of NTB Soft and the
Moscow Academy for Finance and Industry are expected to make reports
during the seminar. A network seminar “Organizational schemes for
teaching via Internet at high-school” is planed on sidelines of
the event.

From: Baghdasarian

RPA: SARGSYAN-ALIYEV MEETING IN KAZAN WON’T BE CROWNED WITH AGREEMENT

PanARMENIAN.Net
June 2, 2011 – 11:52 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net – It’s not ruled out that the meeting between the
Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents in Kazan will bring the sides’
positions closer but it will hardly be crowned with signature of
any agreement, according to Artak Zakaryan, member of the ruling
Republican Party of Armenia.

Commenting on the statement adopted in Deauville by the Presidents
of France, U.S. and Russia, Mr. Zakaryan said that “the Deauville
statement fixed all what has been achieved during the negotiation
process.”

“It’s important that the document mentions the progress registered
in talks. It also emphasized that military solution is inadmissible,”
he said.

From: Baghdasarian

STAMP DEDICATED TO VIENNA MEKHITARIST ANNIVERSARY RELEASED BY AUSTRIA POST

Wed, Jun 1 2011

VIENNA, Austria (A.W.)-Austria Post released a commemorative stamp
recently on the 200th anniversary of the establishment of the
Mekhitarist congregation in Vienna.

The commemorative stamp released on the 200th anniversary of the
establishment of the Mekhitarist congregation in Vienna.

The stamp was launched on May 12 at the dinner hall of the Mekhitarist
church in Vienna. Austrian religious leaders, diplomats, and leaders
of the local Armenian community attended the event.

Abbot Fr. Boghos Kojanian presented the history of the Mekhitarist
congregation, with a particular focus on the Mekhitarists of Vienna.

The head of Austria Post Wolfgang Lesiak spoke next, highlighting the
importance of the commemorative stamp, of which two million copies
have been released. These stamps “will spread across the world as
representatives of the Mekhitarist congregation and the Armenian
people,” he said.

The 200th anniversary of the Mekhitarists of Vienna will be celebrated
in Vienna in September, and in Yerevan in October.

From: Baghdasarian

‘HAI TAHD’: NEW PRIORITIES FOR A NEW AGENDA (PART I)
By: Michael Mensoian

Thu, Jun 2 2011

The founding of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) in 1890
was a selfless response by a group of men and women to the oppressive
socioeconomic and political conditions that afflicted the Armenian
population of the Ottoman Turkish Empire.

The history of the ARF during this early period (1890 to 1923) reads
like a romantic novel. However, this was not fiction. As fedayee, they
challenged the rapaciousness of the Turkish and Kurdish overlords who
ruled the interior of Anatolia or the government-sponsored pogroms that
were responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of Armenians. As
political leaders, at times working with the Young Turks, they sought
to introduce constitutional reforms to ameliorate the socioeconomic
condition of the ethnic minorities within the empire. The incentive
for the ARF was to lessen the oppressive burden of Ottoman-Turkish
rule on the Armenians. For the Young Turks or Ittihadists, at least
initially, the purpose was to maintain a multi-ethnic empire from
disintegrating. And in the diplomatic arena, the ARF represented the
interests of the Armenian people vis-a-vis the international power
brokers such as England and France.

The Treaty of Lausanne, which was signed on July 24, 1923 by the United
Kingdom, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, the Serb-Croat-Slovene
State, and Turkey, ignored the interests of the Armenian people and
sealed the fate of the Armenian nation. Hai Tahd (Armenian Cause) is
the Dashnaktsutiun Manifesto of these injustices that have afflicted
the Armenian people and their nation since 1915.

Injustice number one: the genocide

The genocide of the Armenian population of Anatolia by the
Ottoman-Turkish government represents the bedrock of Hai Tahd. The
determined attempt to annihilate the Armenian nation is the proximate
cause of the injustices represented by Hai Tahd. Before this genocide
of a nation was completed, over two million Armenians were uprooted
from their homes in lands that had been continuously occupied centuries
before the Turkish tribes entered the region from central Asia. From
1915-23, Turkish barbarity put to death some 1.5 million men, women,
and children, effectively emptying the historic Armenian provinces
in Anatolia of their rightful inhabitants.

Injustice number two: the confiscation of real and personal property

The depopulation of the Armenian settlements throughout Anatolia
resulted in a massive shift of wealth from the innocent victims
of the genocide to the newly recognized Turkish state (Treaty of
Lausanne, 1923) and its people. Included were productive farmlands,
orchards, and vineyards with their implements and farm animals; homes;
businesses; inventories of goods, raw materials, and personal effects;
community-held property; and religious and educational structures
and lands. This confiscated wealth was never fully inventoried nor
was its value calculated either in 1915 or now.

Injustice number three: the loss of Wilsonian Armenian

The Treaty of Sevres (Aug. 10, 1920) established a free and independent
Armenia based on U.S. President Woodrow Wilson’s Arbitral Award. The
nascent independent republic of Armenia established following the
victory over Turkish forces at Sadarabad (May 1918) was beset with
overwhelming social, economic, and political problems.

Although Sultan Mehmet VI (Muhammad VI) had capitulated at Mudros
(Oct. 30, 1918) to the United Kingdom representing the allies,
Kemal Ataturk, operating from the interior city of Ankara, blamed the
government for losing the empire. His nationalistic message resonated
with the military as he set about to reclaim Anatolia from the Greek,
French, and Italian spheres of interest established by the allies. If
allowed to stand, coupled with a free Armenia occupying eastern
Anatolia, only the central region from Ankara north to the Black
Sea would have remained under direct Turkish control. During the
time between the treaties of Sevres and Lausanne, Ataturk reclaimed
all of Anatolia for the Turks. Forced to accept this new reality,
the principal allied powers (the United Kingdom and France), intent
on preserving their own interests within the greater Near East
(present-day Middle East), framed the Treaty of Lausanne, which
superseded the Treaty of Sevres. Turkey was recognized as a sovereign
state within its present borders, the Armenian Genocide was ignored,
and President Wilson’s free and independent Armenia was forgotten.

Injustice number four: destruction of Armenian cultural artifacts

Not content with annihilating the Armenian nation, the succession of
Turkish governments from Ataturk to current Turkish Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan adopted a policy that denies the genocide and
eliminates all traces of Armenian occupation and development of
Anatolia centuries before a Turkic political entity was established.

Armenian cultural artifacts were purposely destroyed, allowed to fall
into ruin, pillaged by the local population for building materials,
or used for purposes for which they were never intended. Especially
was this true of religious structures and ancient cemeteries with
their beautiful hand-carved khatchkars. Place names were changed and
the cultural landscape of settled areas deliberately altered.

Injustice number five: unilateral confiscation of historic Armenian
lands

In August 1920, the Armenian nation was still traumatized by the
murder of 1.5 million of its people. The attendant destruction
of the social, economic, and political framework of the nation was
almost complete. Independent Armenia was in no position to forcefully
represent its justifiable claims expressed in the Treaty of Sevres or
to challenge the Kemalists who were allowed free reign, especially by
the United Kingdom, to reassert Turkish control over all of Anatolia.

The French were in control of Syria (including present-day Lebanon)
and the adjoining Turkish district of Alexandrette (Iskenderun) and,
having nothing further to gain, colluded with Ataturk and withdrew
its forces from the Cilician region leaving the Armenians defenseless.

Events subsequent to the subversion of the first independent Republic
of Armenia (May 28, 1918 to Nov. 29, 1920) by the Russian Bolsheviks
and their Armenian sympathizers involved the loss of additional
historic Armenian territories. With the Treaty of Moscow (March 1921),
the newly formed Socialist Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan was awarded
Armenian Artsakh and Nakhitchevan. A few months later (July 1921),
the Bolsheviks placed Javakhk under Georgian jurisdiction. And in an
attempt to foster better relations with Ataturk’s Turkey, the Russian
Bolsheviks ceded the Kars-Ardahan region to Turkey in the Treaty of
Kars (October 1921). What remained of the Bolshevik Armenian Republic
was the core area centered on Yerevan and Gyumri.

Injustice number six: the issue of Artsakh

Our brothers and sisters in Karabagh (part of historic Armenian
Artsakh) were forced to live for some seven decades under a hostile
Turkic-Azeri government. The perverted policies of the Bolsheviks
continually thwarted the Karabagh Armenian petitions to rejoin
Armenia. Finally, in 1989, the Armenians declared their independence
from Azerbaijan in accordance with the recognized principles of
self-determination and remedial secession. The response to this
declaration was a full-scale attack by the Azeri military forces. The
Karabagh Armenians, supported by the Republic of Armenia and ARF
volunteers, successfully defended their declared independence and
were able to liberate significant areas of historic Artsakh. For
the past 17 years (the 1994 ceasefire officially ended the war),
the Artsakh Armenians have enjoyed de facto independence. However,
their right to de jure independence hangs in the balance against
Turkish and Azerbaijani attempts to frame the issue simply as an
unprovoked attack by Armenia on a neighbor’s territorial integrity
or Armenian irredentism.

Injustice number seven: the forced acculturation of the ‘Javakhayer’

Javakhk (Georgian Samtskhe-Javakheti) is an historic Armenian land
that was placed under the jurisdiction of neighboring Georgia in 1921
by the Russian Bolsheviks. The region occupies a strategic location
along the border with Turkey; the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline
passes through the district. An indication of the Tbilisi government’s
determination to acculturate the Armenians was the following comment
by Georgian Foreign Minister Grigol Vashadze in an October 2010
interview during a visit to Armenia: “I don’t know what Javakhk is;
there is no Javakhk region on the map.”

Through resettlement projects, the government seeks to reduce the
Armenian majorities within the region’s districts. Infrastructural
development (roads, electricity) receives less emphasis than other
regions of the country. The closure in 2007 of the Russian military
base at Akhalkalaki where many Armenians were employed increased their
already high unemployment rate within the region. Manufacturing is
non-existent and agriculture needs significant inputs of technology
and marketing infrastructure to rise above its present subsistence
level. The government continues its pernicious assault on the
cultural fabric of the people: their language, church, education,
public gatherings, and means of mass communication. Employment
opportunities are purposely limited and participation in the political
process hampered. The United States turns a blind eye to these obvious
transgressions against the Armenians while it continues to portray
Georgia as a beacon of democracy in the South Caucasus.

Part II will suggest setting new priorities for a new agenda
that shifts the emphasis to objectives that are more immediate and
significant with respect to Hai Tahd, to the ARF, and to the Armenian
nation.

From: Baghdasarian

THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AND ISRAELI RECOGNITION
Harry Hagopian

NowLebanon

June 1 2011
Lebanon

In her piece Knesset moves toward recognizing Armenian genocide on
JPost.com on May 18, Rebecca Anna Stoil wrote that “The historical
facts supporting the Armenian genocide are solid and well-based. There
is still an argument between the Turkish nation and the Armenian
nation, but this argument cannot justify even a sliver of denial
regarding the Armenian people’s tragedy. We find it difficult to
forgive other nations who ignore our tragedy, and thus we cannot
ignore another nation’s tragedy. It is our moral obligation as human
beings and as Jews.”

In fact, writing on Haaretz.com a day later under the title Knesset to
discuss Armenian Genocide amid deteriorating Turkey ties, Jonathan Lis
also explained how another parliamentarian, Zehava Gal-On, declared
to the parliamentary assembly her belief “that it was the duty of the
Israeli Knesset to make a clear stance on this issue, especially in
face of the thundering silence of past Israeli governments over so many
years.” She segued, “It is important to stress – the moral obligation
to recognize the Armenian Genocide is not a left or right issue.”

Going back to April 24, 2000, then-Israeli Minister of Education Yossi
Sarid also spoke at the 85th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. He
referred to The Forty Days of Musa Dagh, whose Prague-born Jewish
author, Franz Werfel, had published his harrowing story about the
Armenian victims of the genocide in 1933 when Adolf Hitler had just
come to power. Sarid stated, “As Minister of Education of the State
of Israel, I will do whatever is in my capacity in order that this
monumental work The Forty Days of Musa Dagh is once more well-known
to our children. I will do everything in order that Israeli children
learn and know about the Armenian Genocide. Genocide is a crime
against humanity, and there is nothing more horrible and odious than
genocide. We, Jews, as principal victims of murderous hatred are
doubly obligated to be sensitive to identify with other victims.”

Uplifting words then and hopeful exhortations now, and it still
feels we are witnessing another deja-vu in Israel in 2011. Indeed,
the way in which the Armenian Genocide is being horse-traded by
Israeli politicians in geopolitical markets is not quite ethical,
is it? Could it be that Israeli lawmakers are using this emotive
issue to vent their displeasure at Turkey – almost to spite it –
since relations sank to their nadir following the MV Mavi Marmara
flotilla raid of May 2010? Would this discussion have really happened
if the political and military alliance between Turkey and Israel had
been as strong today as it had been a mere few years ago?

However, I also admit that sheer political interests are structurally
dissimilar to ethics. So it would be a huge moral, let alone political,
achievement if Israel – the central hub of the horrendous Holocaust
that was visited by Europe upon the Jews in Poland, Germany and
elsewhere but for which the Arab World often carries the tab – were
to recognize at long last the Armenian chapter of genocide. After
all, writing on JPost.com on December 24, 2010 under the title Keep
Dreaming: This Week in Armenia following his return from Yerevan,
capital of Armenia, David Breakstone, chair of the World Zionist
Organization and member of the World Jewish Executive, stated
unequivocally that “We [Jews] cannot right the wrongs of the past,
but we can recognize them. Doing so would go a long way toward healing
an open wound.” Breakstone added, “My visit to the genocide memorial
in Yerevan dispels any doubt that this holocaust was every bit as
ghastly as that experienced by the Jews a few decades later.”

So while we are all agog watching this space, let me recall an article
by Raffi Hovannisian, former prime minister of Armenia and now leader
of the Heritage Parliamentary Party. Under the title Turkey, Israel
and the moment of truth on May 14, 2010, he wrote, “The Armenian
Genocide must never be allowed to become a political football for
selective use by two erstwhile allies to sort out their relations and
the contents of their closets… Recognition should not be a favour,
nor an instrument of self-serving leverage, but a matter of truth
and equity – simple, overdue, unrequited – and nothing more.”

Whether this motion is recognized or not, I hope Armenians will
remember that they do not need Israel or any other country to tell
them that their forbearers underwent the Armenian genocide. Not when
they survived this heinous crime and in fact triumphed by overcoming
a project that strove to annihilate them. A robust people with their
natural fortes and foibles, do they need the cloying imprimatur of
other countries for them to realize that they defied the angels of
death in the late 1800s as well as from 1915 to 1923 and came out
victorious? I suggest not, since their – our – very celebration of
life is the strongest riposte to those who tried to get rid of them –
as will also their unflinching solidarity with all other victims of
genocide world-wide.

An after-thought here: Lebanon, whose parliament recognized the
genocide in May 2000, houses many fine journalists, not least Robert
Fisk, who enjoys an encyclopedic and sophisticated knowledge of
the Armenian holocaust. I so would like to have a cup of tea with
him today.

From: Baghdasarian

WILL BAKU VENTURE UPON WAR ON EVE OF SARGSYAN-ALIYEV MEETING IN KAZAN?

PanARMENIAN.Net
June 1, 2011 – 21:12 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net – “As the Kazan meeting approaches, the stakes are
raised for both peace and war in the Caucasus,” expert Thomas de Waal
wrote in an article published by National Interest.

The Presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia – Serzh Sargsyan,
Ilham Aliyev and Dmitry Medvedev – are slated to meet in June in the
Russian city of Kazan, the next in a series of trilateral meetings
on the Karabakh conflict settlement.

There are certain expectations with respect to the meeting, taking
into consideration the Deaville statement adopted by the leaders
of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chair countries, who said “the time has
arrived for all the sides to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to take
a decisive step towards a peaceful settlement.”

The statement also reads that “further delay [in the settlement]
would only call into question the commitment of the sides to reach
an agreement.”

According to Thomas de Waal, it will be tough to construct a joint
postconflict settlement for Karabakh. “This will be especially
important if the framework plan is agreed and there comes the
inevitable hiatus between an initial agreement and progress on the
ground. The spoilers will rush in to try to destroy it,” he said.

Judging from the established situation, the Azerbaijani leadership can
be understood among “the spoilers,” as it needs a war in Karabakh to
keep power and does not conceal this, continuously threatening with
resumption of hostilities in Karabakh. Thus, a peaceful settlement
of the conflict is not within the plans of Baku and Azerbaijan may
try to destroy it.

However, the Deaville statement indicates that Obama, Medvedev
and Sarkosy have taken into consideration also this possibility:
“The use of force created the current situation of confrontation
and instability. Its use again would only bring more suffering and
devastation, and would be condemned by the international community.

Thus, even if Aliyev ventures upon a war without permission of the
superpowers, they will not stand on the sidelines. And due to the
recent developments in Middle East, specifically, the ouster of
undesirable leaders there, Aliyev cannot but understand that should
he launch a war in Karabakh to keep his post, he may be deprived of
it very soon.

From: Baghdasarian

BEKOR PAPAZYAN – A VICTIM OF STATE MINING INTERESTS
Edik Baghdasaryan

16:55, June 1, 2011

Bekor Papazyan, Executive Director of Armenia’s National
Competitiveness Foundation, has tendered his resignation effective
June 15.

A Hetq source within the government says that Mr. Papazyan, rather
than voluntarily leaving the post, is being forced out, a victim of
mining interests at the Tatev Monastery.

Readers will note that Hetq reported that a Chinese firm had obtained
mining rights to the iron mine located in Svarants, in proximity to
the Tatev Monastery in southern Armenia.

It seems that Papazyan and a number of benefactors who had invested in
the “Tatev Rebirth” tourist program were caught off-guard by the news
that mining operations would be starting up so close to the Tatev site.

It seems that no one in government saw fit to inform Papazyan and
the others in advance.

Papazyan issued a public statement arguing that mining and cultural
tourism cannot be conducted at the same place at the same time;
in a word they are mutually exclusive.

This ruffled the feathers of those within the government strongly
pushing for extensive exploitation of Armenia’s natural resources.

When Hetq asked Mr. Papazyan whether the Tatev flap had anything to
do with his resignation, he refused to answer.

Just last week the Competitiveness Foundation’s Board issued a
statement praising Papazyan for the important contributions he has
made during his tenure as executive director and particularly noting
strides made in the tourism and health sectors.

While we can’t say who will assume the helm of the Competitiveness
Foundation, rest assured that the individual appointed will express
his or her full support for the mining operation at Tatev.

From: Baghdasarian

“THE OSCE STRUCTURE AS A NEGOTIATION GROUND AND FORMAT NEEDS SERIOUS MODERNIZATION>>
Ruzan Ishkhanian

Tuesday, 31 May 2011 06:58

Senior Staff Scientist of the Political and Social Researches Institute
of the Black Sea-Caspian region, Scientific Associate of the RAS
Oriental Studies Institute Andrey Areshev also participated in the
international conference held in Stepanakert and called ‘The legal,
political, and historical bases of the NKR establishment’. In his
interview to Azat Artsakh newspaper, he touched upon the peculiarities
of the current stage of the Karabakh conflict peaceful settlement and
considered them in the context of the geopolitical processes taking
place in the region.

– Mr. Areshev, as a political analyst, what are your forecasts on
the political processes taking place around the Karabakh conflict
and what do you think about the settlement process?

– The Karabakh conflict settlement is very complicated. In this regard,
there are quite different viewpoints and approaches, complicated with
many factors. First of all, the conflict started in the structure of a
common state. Some people consider that the conflict started in 1991,
but this approach is wrong. One should not ignore the nuances related
to the historical aspects of the conflict.

In particular, the AzerbaijaniRepublic, which was formed after the
collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, stated its refusal of the
succession to Soviet Azerbaijan, in the structure of which Nagorno
Karabakh had been. So, the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan can be
noted only under a condition – Azerbaijan must return to the Soviet
Union. As of the current situation, the Karabakh conflict has left the
frames of the South Caucasus and has become a subject of attention
of different world states and forces. oomplicated correlation has
occurred in the negotiation process: negotiations are held within
the OSCE and meetings of the Azerbaijani and Armenian Presidents are
held under the mediation of Russia. We realize that Russia plays an
important role in the negotiation process. On the other hand, it is
also clear that the situation in the South Caucasus is far from the
Soviet realities, in particular, from the situation of the 90s. Great
players, and first of all the USA, entered the region, though not
always publicly, however, considerably impacting the negotiation
process. Public impact on the developments has the Russian Federation.

The existing complicated situation is a direct consequence of the
lasting tension between the USA and RF.

– Considering the existing political realities, what solution to the
issue do you see within the OSCE?

– The prospect of the conflict settlement in this format seems
fantastic to me. Similar expectations existed before the conference
in Astana and we saw the results. The speeches of the Armenian
and Azerbaijani Presidents run counter to each other. The Russian
diplomatic sources have repeatedly stated (I also support this
viewpoint) that the OSCE structure as a negotiation ground and format
needs serious modernization. In the current conditions, it is quite
difficult to resolve the issue within the frames. The same concerns
the European Union, which positions itself as an active player in
the South Caucasus, but doesn’t sufficiently take the realities into
account. For instance, when Abkhazia was an unrecognized state, foreign
missions ignored it. Currently, when Abkhazia has become a subject
of international law after its recognition by the RF and some other
states, increased interest towards it and aspiration for establishing
official contacts with it is displayed by the Western and European
diplomatic missions. It should be realized that, on the one hand,
the involvement in the world processes gives certain possibilities,
and on the other hand, it provides some restrictions.

Especially if a country establishes relations with de jure
international and de facto Western donor organizations, it must assume
certain political commitments. In the prospect, it can even restrict
the possibilities for a political maneuver.

– Cooperation of European structures with unrecognized states,
including the NKR, is an obvious fact today. Do you think that Europe
can play the role of mediator in the conflict settlement?

– As of Europe’s activeness, I’d note the following: there is really
an institute legitimizing Karabakh’s participation in European NGOs
and this is, surely, very good. However, it should be realized that
currently, even the EU, as an active player, deals more with its own
problems, which are more than enough. So, it should be taken into
account that the Karabakh conflict will be on the periphery of EU’s
attention. Second, the interest towards Karabakh will be considered
within the interest towards Azerbaijan as a transit territory and
energy supplier, and these are projects, around which intensive
lobbying processes are launched in the European Union, First, it is
the project of NABUCCO. Much was spoken here about the prospects of
European integration. Meanwhile, a political solution supposing any
actions will be adopted by the EU, while watching the reaction of
the USA. The sample of Abkhazia testifies this. On the other hand,
the adopted solution will have a tendency equating the responsibility
of the Azerbaijani and Armenian parties. The proposals, which Armenia
and Karabakh will get from the EU and generally from the Western
organizations, will have some disagreeable shade.

– If no political solution is achieved on any level – neither within
the OSCE nor the EU, and Azerbaijan tries to resume the war, what,
do you think, will the superpowers’ actions be? Resumption of war is
unfavorable either for the West or Russia you know.

– You are right. This isn’t favorable for anybody. I should also
note that different forces have quite different impulses. But, what
I see allows me to state with some optimism that the probability of
wide-scale military activities is small. Unjustified expectations
are finally gone.

From: Baghdasarian